leh-nerd skin-erd

And you less provincial…

I know the reference, I’m book-learned, too.

I don’t know, I think I’m doing pretty good. One guy is searching kitty kat memes and another is thinking about panties in a wad. Or one guy is searching for kitty kat memes and thinking about panties, which may be more disturbing. Either way, I’m allergic to cats and wadless in this case.

What’s the “super woman” part here? She hit the talking points —China! Russia! Saudi Arabia!—but beyond the toothless declaration that “legitimate questions” exist around the Musk purchase, she really didn’t say anything. As it stands right now, there is an investigation into the FTC and a potential government shakedown of Twitter. There is an investigation into the behavior of the organization pre-Musk. Maybe she’s looking in the wrong spot? My favorite part though was how Vic Chi praised her for being “calm” in a committee room in Washington. Apparently he feels it’s super human that a Georgetown & American University graduate, attorney, delegate to the House, and world traveler could keep her emotions in check during a committee meeting. Maybe it’s time for him to move past a 1950s mentality?

I think you’re on to something, but sadder still is that we’re supposed to gather something usable and educational from a conversation that starts with a declaration from a podium that goes “You’re a piece of ****, you’ll always be a piece of ****, now let’s talk more…”.

One of the amazing things about this exchange is that our culture generally excels when dialogue is open and honest, and we move to a shared understanding of another’s point of view. In Washington, however, what passes for dialogue is reduced to carefully constructed bloviating, often unfounded allegations, declarations on what a person meant by the carefully constructed sound bites, a complete disregard of the answer of the witness, all boiling down to “Explain yourself in 4 minutes, we’ll give you 5 if you were mentioned by name.”.

Oh, no, it was a reference to multiple screen names. I was just trying to throw you off the case.

I said “We. Hmm.”. Do you have me confused with someone else?

“We”. Hmmm.

I think this is spot on, and I’ve said as much for 2 plus years. Interestingly, @redtail hawk suggested I was trying to justify the actions of miscreants on 1/6 yet here he’s got a hearty thumbs up. @L Ron Burgundy offered that folks involved in the day should rot, yet your summary seems rational and nuanced, and he likes it, too. Huh. On a related note, if you extrapolated this reasoned and rational response to the world at large, bottled it up in a candidate of any color, shape, size, and that identified as on the spectrum as m/w/o, called themself a D, R, I or “Any of the above”, and offered sensible solutions to our nation’s problems, some of which I would disagree with due my own life experiences….I’d vote for that person 10/10 times.

I am not going to share identify alleged sock puppets easy or don’t.

The fun here was in setting the bait and dropping the line in the water. Word to the wise: when someone tells you someone else wrote “gullible” on the ceiling, don’t look up! My son got me on that one when he was in elementary school.

Next time, a simple yes or no would do. All this yammering on, I’ll bet your patients used to pretend to be asleep when you checked in on them. But ty nonetheless.

I’m starting to think @Irv is right about BillSy and multiple accounts. I’m seeing a trend. What say you B-man?

It happens every day in Washington, proven liars having exclusive access to data. Next question please.

I'm gonna make a change It's gonna feel real good Shamone Change Just lift yourself You know You've got to stop it yourself (Yeah! Hoo! Make that change!) I gotta make that change today, hoo (Man in the mirror) You got to You got to not pick yourself, brother, hoo (Yeah! Make that change!) You know I gotta get that man, that man (Man in the mirror) You've got to You've got to move Shamone, shamone

This is a fair analysis of where we are right now. This is spot on: We couldn’t be given the footage, according to our media and political elites, lest we draw the wrong conclusions. Herein lies the problem: the best way to avoid the American people drawing the wrong conclusions is to present them with the full evidence, and then let them draw their own conclusions. And that’s precisely what the elites in our media and the Democratic Party won’t allow.

It's a gift, it just feels like a curse. I imagine my sons one day will enjoy the SB win, raise a glass and say "Dad, only missed it by 14 years...Robot, pull up a picture of Dad from 2029...".

I saw a fair amount previously attempting to burn down Washington and many cities across the country, and don't recall any 'calls' by any leader to "desecrate" the Capitol. Maybe you only care when it's convenient?

But you want it released on your terms based on your political ideology, and complain about something completely natural in politics. Plus, the real problem is that it that the footage was withheld to begin with. Why? It wasn’t fine, and these committees really never are. They declared their bias at the start, functioned with bias through the process, and worked with media to paint a picture designed to manipulate. We saw the terrible things done that day, I agree on that. We should see them, and those people should be punished. However, I see no issues at all with acknowledging the video of the Shaman, for example, is completely different than advertised. Now, his legal team is complaining that they were prohibited from seeing that evidence, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. I mean, I can, but it paints the govt in less than a positive light. You may not care, and probably don’t, but you should. You should care like it’s some poor kid with charges leveled against him in some city in middle America. It’s good to remember that the ideal is that justice is blind. You seem to think this is something new, or that it’s unique to Tucker Carlson. Buffoons are manipulated every day, it’s conspiracy city every day, and the FBI and law enforcement were accused of systemic bias and injustice just a while back before you folks were told to do a 180 and emotionally, that appealed to yiu. See, for example, Michael Brown. Cities burn. People die. Buffoons rage. I suggest you wake up. I’m a realist, I pay attention, ask questions, try to recognize my blind spots. I’m not always successful. Respectfully, I think people like you are a huge part of the problem in the country today, and have doppelgängers on the right, because you fail to see the interconnectedness of these issues. You said previously you didn’t care about the dem party and Russiagate, a conspiracy if there ever was one. That’s dumb, you should care, because conceptually, “Stop the Steal” was predictable. The debacle at the Capitol was something else entirely, but whichever party lost was going to claim a stolen election, for the Dems it would have been two in a row. I couldn’t tell you if a truly deep dive into election security would reveal massive systemic problems in our elections. I wouldn’t be surprised, but consider just a few short years ago millions of democrats were absolutely convinced something nefarious happened to change the outcome of an election, and remain steadfast in that belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. You people went from “ELECTIONS WERE ILLEGITIMATE!” were manipulated to “QUESTION NOTHING!” in 4 years. It’s fascinating to me, and really pretty sad.

Baby, take off your coat Real slow And take off your shoes I'll take off your shoes Baby, take off your dress Yes, yes, yes You can leave your hat on You can leave your hat on You can leave your hat on Go over there Turn on the lights All the lights Come over here Stand on that chair Yeah, that's right Raise your arms up in the air And now shake 'em

😂 I didn’t see someone supersizing that sentence, but you went and did it, Wack.

But that’s the way it works, and your feelings are irrelevant. Someone’s feelings are always irrelevant. Those in charge release to the sources they choose, and not everyone agrees that the chosen one at any given point in time is trustworthy. Personally, I would reject any news source that was not working very, very hard to gain access to all the footage from day one. I’d certainly reject any source that missed the ultimate resolution of the Mueller case, or completely botched reporting on H Biden laptop scandal—those sources are incompetent or corrupted.

L. Ron, you don’t all know the committee was one-sided, much was made of the bipartisan make up, clumsily forced and hacked together for maximum political theater though it was. Be that as it may, you’re now advocating for censoring/withholding footage because some parts of the demonstration were peaceful? They should release every minute of footage that does not threaten national security, and the question of what constitutes a threat to national security should be reviewed thoroughly and by a bi-partisan committee. While it may not seem like it, the footage belongs to the American people, collectively, warts and all. Some of you people get like to be lead around like a pampered poodle.

I mentioned that the other day, and L Ron took issue with it. Turns out darkness is preferable at times. Meanwhile, the owner of the WaPo is zipping around the world in a $500m super yacht, so either way, it’s good for business.